The Ontopolitics of Complexity: Toward Agonistic Democracy and Ecological Political Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexity is among the most used yet rarely defined and often misunderstood terms in sustainability science. In this text, I argue that the conventionalization of the concept of complexity has resulted in the conflation of “thin” (i.e., reductionist) complexity and “thick” (i.e., perspectivist) complexity, and the resultant confusion surrounding these categories has created unnecessary tensions between sustainability science and environmental justice. Employing William E. Connolly’s ontopolitical-genealogical approach, I tease out implicit ontological commitments relating to complexity, holism, organicism, and environmental determinism, in the intellectual history of systems theory, cybernetics, and theoretical ecology. I critique key interlocutors in the pluralism debate within ecological economics to illustrate how conventionalized complexity has created barriers to pluralistic engagement between ecological economics and political ecology. Following radical democratic theorists, I argue that the distinction between thick and thin complexity is essential to fostering “agonistic pluralism” between sustainability science and environmental justice while also serving as a defence against the misuse of systems concepts by anti-pluralists, authoritarians, and technocrats. I argue that totalizing, functionalist expressions of systems theory exacerbate political violence by displacing political discourse and serving as a pretext for ecofascism. As an alternative to functionalist organicism, I articulate a relational ontology of life, in the tradition of Robert Rosen and Terrance Deacon, that creates affordances for agency that is both creative and reflexive. I explore how such an ontology destabilizes politically conservative, neoliberal, anti-pluralist interpretations of thin complexity, and I argue that thick complexity, relational holism, and teleodynamism can serve as core concepts for a more robust discourse in ecological political economy that is concurrently attentive to the dual imperatives of biophysical limits and environmental justice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".